Tillerson OUT Pompeo IN

It looks like the much-rumoured ousting of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state is now high on Trump's mind. He wants Mike Pompeo, his trusted like-minded outspoken CIA director to take over at State. The State Department is located in Washington's Foggy Bottom district, but Trump thinks Tillerson's brain has been much too foggy of late, particularly over Iran and North Korea, so he has fallen out of favour. Pompeo, on the other hand, wlll not let Trump down. He knows what his master wants and he agrees with him anyway on all the key issues. There will be nothing very diplomatic about Pompeo when he confronts Iran over the nuclear deal and Kim Jong-un over his nuclear weapons. Pompeo gave a brilliant insight into his way of thinking in the summer during an interview he gave at the Aspen security forum in Colorado. He was asked why he felt dubious about the Obama nuclear deal with Iran which was signed by all the five major nuclear powers plus Germany. In exchange for restricting its nuclear programme over the next ten years, Iran was promised a phased lifting of the heavyweight sanctions which had helped to cripple the country's economy. Pompeo revealed, presumbaly based on classified CIA intelligence, that Iran was cheating and getting away with it, despite a tough verification programme agreed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as part of the nuclear deal. This is what he said: "I kind of think of Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal like a bad tenant. How many of you have had a bad tenant? You now, they don't pay the rent, you call them and then they send a cheque and it doesn't clear and they send another one. And then the next day there's this old tired sofa in the front yard and you tell them to take it away and you know they drag it to the back. This is Iranian compliance today. Grudging, minimalist, temporary with no intention of doing really what the agreement was designed to do, it was designed to foster stability and have Iran become a reentrant to the Western world, and the agreement simply hasn't achieved that." He went on to say he didn't know what would force Iran to honour the agreement in the proper manner. "But I can tell you what won't, is continued appeasement, continued failure to acknowledge when they do things wrong and forcing them into compliance." So, with Pompeo at the State Department, there would be a new tough approach with Tehran. Trump has already refused to certify the deal the last time he was supposed to put his initials to the continuing agreement, despite Tillerson's recommendation that he should. Pompeo in the background obviously told the president to step back. The rest of the world community condemned Trump. But if Pompeo is moved to State, then Tehran is going to face a much tougher secretary than Tillerson who was persuaded by his counterparts in Moscow, Beijing and London that the deal was good and that Iran was NOT cheating. Pompeo believes Tehran IS cheating and getting away with it, and is making more gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment than the deal allows, is stalling over allowing IAEA inspectors into the military/nuclear complex at Parchin and is generating more heavy water tonnage than is laid down in the deal - all signs that Iran is slowly pushing ahead with its nuclear programme under the noses of the IAEA, AND getting sanctions lifted. Incidentally, the plan is for Senator Tom Cotton to go to the CIA as Pompeo's replacement. Cotton and Pompeo are birds of the same feather. They were the ones who discovered, by accident, that there were secret annexes at the end of the nuclear deal, relating to the powers and limits of the verification programme which not even Obama had seen. The secret annexes were for the eyes only of the IAEA and Tehran. How scary is that? With Pompeo and Cotton in top positions, the Iran nuclear deal is going to be changed to suit Trump, whatever the likes of Boris Johnson in London says.

Trump and the empty chairs

The empty chair routine, of course, has been done before. Donald Trump used the image of two empty chairs when he tried to explain why he was so disgusted that two veteran Democrats, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority leader, boycotted a meeting at the White House which the president had called to discuss his proposed tax reforms. It was a colourful moment which summed up not just Trump's extreme irritation at being spurned by the two most senior Democrats but also the state of relations between the two parties. Those two empty chairs said more about Trump's problems in Congress than almost anything. The other most notable empty chair image was given to us courtesy of Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood. That was back in 2012 when Eastwood, one of my all-time favourite icons of the movie business, was making a hugely promoted address to the Republican National Convention. The empty chair was supposed to contain Barack Obama. It was intended to be a clever joke, with Eastwood chatting to the invisible Obama to put across his view that the "sitting" president did not deserve a second term. Most people thought it was a ghastly embarrassment. Another guy who thought an empty chair would make a good theatrical device was William Shakespeare, or as one of my American friends one said to me, "Bill Shakespeare". In Macbeth, there is one empty chair at the banquet given by Macbeth in Act III. The missing guest is his old friend, Banquo, who had just been murdered by Macbeth's henchmen. The chair, of course, for those who know the play, is suddenly filled by Banquo's bloodstained ghost whom only Macbeth can see. Take it from me for those who haven't seen the play performed, it's considerably more dramatic a moment than when Eastwood addressed the empty chair at the convention. Trump's two empty chairs idea was pretty effective although it only helped to underline the predicament he is facing in everything he is trying to do. There is not a whisper of compromise in Congress right now. It's a dire situation. Extra extra! Just a quick comment on the latest big cheese American broadcaster to lose his job over sexual harassment allegations. Matt Lauer has been sacked by NBC because a female colleague came forward with a detailed description of his conduct which the high-ups at NBC considered was sufficiently awful to send him packing. The list of big names being accused of "inappropriate conduct" is getting longer by the week. The fall of Charlie Rose of CBS was a huge surprise to those of us who enjoyed his interview style but knew nothing of his bizarre personal behaviour. Matt Lauer is also an excellent interviewer and presenter and we don't yet know what he is supposed to have done wrong. But where will it end? When Charlie Rose was outed as an alleged female abuser, Matt Lauer appeared on NBC and asked searching questions of people on his programme about the dramatic end of Rose's previously distinguished career. Did he by any chance have any sneaking fear at the back of his mind as he asked the questions about whether he too might be found out and exposed? And how many other high-profile American presenters are even now carrying on their broadcasting jobs in a state of permanent suspense and dread?

Could we face nuclear war?

Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and a very pleasant fellow, has admitted that he is really worried there could be a nuclear war. It's the sort of comment which sends shivers down one's spine. Mullen is retired but it wasn't long ago that he knew all the secrets in the Pentagon and still knows to this day what sort of contingency planning the Defense Department has done in the event of an imminent nuclear attack. In other words, he knows his stuff. He admitted in an interview that the potential for a nuclear war was scary. He was talking about North Korea, envisaging a scenario in which Kim Jong-un, having acquired long-range nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, might feel tempted to use them. He must have thought this through and felt impelled to make his views known. I was Pentagon Correspondent for The Times in Washington when Admiral Mullen was the military chief for the Obama administration, and most of my fellow Pentagon Press Corps colleagues liked and respected him. He was approachable and very quotable. But does that make him right when he says he believes a nuclear war is more possible than it was some years ago? Theoretically his fears are sound. There is no question that a North Korea armed with intercontinental-range nuclear ballistic missiles will make the world a far more dangerous place. But will it be like the Cold War or something totally different? Will the mutual assured destruction in the hands of Trump and Kim Jong-un prevent war, as in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, or invite war? I suspect what is in the back of Mullen's mind are his cncerns about the temperament of President Trump and what he might do if facing a nuclear-armed Kim Jong-un. Mullen was an Obama man, and it doesn't sound, from his interview, that he could ever contemplate being a Trump man. He was even critical of General John Kelly for being what he thought was overly supportive of Trump in his capacity as White House chief of staff. He also imagined that if an order was ever given for US nuclear weapons to be launched it was very likely that such orders WOULD be obeyed, a view running slightly counter to the recent stories when current senior military commanders said an order to launch a nuclear weapon would only be carried out if it was considered to be legal and proportionate. So Mullen's worries appear to be as much about Trump as they are about Kim Jong-un. All very scary!!!

Kushner put in his place

There's no real contest when a retired four star Marine Corps general is set against a flippertijibett young businessman even if the latter is the son-in-law of the president of the United States. Sure enough, after months of trying to sort out the chain of command in the White House, General John Kelly, chief of staff, has reigned in Jared Kushner and basically told him what he can and can't do in terms of representing the Trump administration. There was a period when Kushner seemed to have his fingers in every pie, whether it was Russia or China or the Middle East or Afghanistan. He could see or chat to his father-in-law whenever he wanted and generally ruled the roost, as it were. He was Chief Chicken!! Under the previous chief of staff he got away with it. But Kelly really has stamped his authority on the White House, and Kushner, being an official loose cannon, definitely did not fit into his way of doing things. He must have got fed up with Kushner waltzing into the Oval Office and bending Trump's ear the whole time. He had the same trouble with Steve Bannon when he was running all over the shop as Trump's chief strategist. There's nothing a four star general hates more than chaotic management. Generals like firm lines that are all joined up in proper mathematical fashion. There's no room for freelancers and that's how Kelly would have viewed Kushner and Bannon. Powerful and influential freelancers getting in the way of sound judgments and strict management. Trump, like all US presidents, needs structure, even though Donald T probably doesn't believe in structured administration. Just look at his Tweets. I'm sure Kushner will continue to have a key advisory role, but it will now be firmly constrained within the Kelly management format. It's quite a victory on Kelly's part. The chain of command has been set in concrete and woe betide anyone who tries to slip into the Oval Office without Kelly's permission! Kushner has struck up a good relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince and I expect that channel will be exploited to best advantage, so the Trump son-in-law will still have his uses. But he now knows who is boss, and I'm not talking about Father-in-Law Trump.

Saudi crown prince speaks his mind

Some new leaders make waves as soon as they take over. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia isn't strictly speaking the new Saudi leader, he's just the heir apparent to King Abdullah, but since being appointed he has certainly taken on the mantle of the man in charge. But he's already showing the same tendency as his friend Donald Trump to mouth off about other leaders. He has called Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran's supreme spiritual leader, the "new Hitler". Personally I don't think it helps for someone with huge power such as the Crown Prince to call the leader of another country, albeit a hated and feared one, the new Hitler. It's stupid, totally counter-productive and unimaginitive. Just like Trump calling Kim Jong-un the Little Rocket Man, it doesn't actually serve a purpose in the great scheme of things other than to annoy the person being insulted. Neither bin Salman nor Trump advanced the search for peaceful relations by their gratuitous comments. The Crown Prince is a man to watch on the world stage. He is clearly intent on not only stirring up Saudi Arabia - not a bad thing - but also playing a big power role in global, particularly Middle Eastern politics. Judging by what he has done so far - for example, bombing the Houthi militia out of existence in Yemen, with widespread collateral damage (killing civilians), and ordering the arrest of 200 fellow princes and others who have been milking the Saudi economy - he seems to be in a hurry to make a splash wherever he goes and whatever he does. If that brings desperately needed genuine reforms to Saudi Arabia, then his leadership will be positive. But there must be better ways of dealing with the threat posed by Iran than calling the supreme leader a new Hitler.

The Crocodile takes over

On the face of it, the last person you would want to succeed Robert Mugabe as president of Zimbabwe is his former vice president, Emmerson Mnangagwa. You only have to read an account of his personal involvement in the slaughter of innocents during the rebellion against whites in the country to realise that he has a past reputation for ruthlessness. He is no kindergarten school teacher. He was Mugabe's enforcer. So why is everyone cheering and waving flags and talking of a new beginning? This is not a new beginning, it's just the old ways painted in a different light. Unless Mnangagwa has seen the error of his ways and has transformed his personality and approach to life, Zimbabwe is not going to be blessed with a political Messiah. The Crocodile, as he likes to be called, is no liberal. But, hopefully, given the chance to rule the country and to do something that will actually benefit its citizens, he will use his enforcer techniques in a more benign way. Perhaps he will create thousands of jobs. Perhaps he will go on a charm offensive and persuade other countries to invest in Zimbabwe. Perhaps he will not order the jailing of opposition leaders. Perhaps he will seek unity, as he promised in his take-over speech. But I say, beware The Crocodile. Let's wait for next year's elections and see how fair and lawful they are. Now he has power, I can't see Mnangagwa relinquishing it to a soft opposition leader if he fails to win the right number of votes. Of course, if he waves a magic wand and improves the lives of Zimbabweans between now and the election, he may well win and be president for a long time. But if he shows any sign that he remains at heart a Mugabe enforcer of notorious brutality, democracy is not going to flower in one of the most beautiful countries in Africa.

Assad wins

Isis may have been defeated in Syria but what about Syria itself? The situation is totally different from the political landscape in Iraq where Isis has also been vanquished. In Baghdad there is a recognised government and prime minister and the country is, relatively speaking, unified, although the Kurds, having played such a huge role in the defeat of Isis, have been thwarted from achieving their goal of an expanded independence in northern Iraq. Syria is still a political mess, with Bashar Assad "in power" in Damascus. But there is also a glorious hotch-potch of rival opposition groups who began this whole war in Syria to oust Assad, and then got caught up in the anti-Isis campaign. They will want their slice of the Syrian cake. The group formerly known as the Nusra Front with its affiliation to al-Qaeda, will also be eager to hang on to what they have managed to grab and occupy in the last four years. Putin reckons he has sorted out Syria's future, after his deal-making summit with the leaders of Iran and Turkey the other day, but who is he kidding? And what is Trump going to do to make sure that all the investment, military and financial which the US has ploughed into Syria over the last few years is not going to be wasted? Whatever happens, it seems likely that Assad will survive. He is looking increasingly confident these days, and with three such influential and powerful countries backing him, it's not surprising. Asad is not going to talk to the Americans. Why should he when he's got Putin, President Erdogan of Turkey and President Rouhani of Iran at his side? So, despite the appalling war crimes committed in the civil war, despite the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons to kill and injure civilians, Assad remains supreme. He's not going anywhere. I predict that Trump will go along with this, allowing Assad to stay in power but with the promise of elections at some time in the future and involvement in the reconstruction of Syrian cities blasted by bombs, artillery and suicide explosions. He will hope that a slice of the reconstruction action will help Washington to retain some influence. But I seriously doubt there will ever be a photograph in the future showing Trump, Putin, Erdogan and Rouhani all shaking hands and smiling to the cameras after an historic four-part agreement for Syria's future.